Problems with believability in audio

[PeterA]

I assume that these 3000-3500 were all recorded differently - some may be concert performances, other studio recordings, right? Do you know how each of them were recorded?

Would you say all of them are recorded in such a way that they remind you of "what you hear in concert halls"?

I don’t know how each of the recordings was recorded, but there is information about how some of them were recorded written on the jackets. I can’t assume all of them are different because some are from the same recording engineers and labels and similar performances. They were likely recorded similarly, but others are recorded differently.

No, not all of them remind me of what I hear in the concert hall because not all of them were recorded in a concert hall. And what I hear is just a representation of the event now in my listening room. It’s not the same as listening to live music. Different time different place.

I don’t think I follow the point you are trying to make. Does it relate to the thread subject of the six problems achieving believability?

 

[hopkins]

I don’t know how each of the recordings was recorded, but there is information about how some of them were recorded written on the jackets. I can’t assume all of them are different because some are from the same recording engineers and labels and similar performances. They were likely recorded similarly, but others are recorded differently.

No, not all of them remind me of what I hear in the concert hall because not all of them were recorded in a concert hall. And what I hear is just a representation of the event now in my listening room. It’s not the same as listening to live music. Different time different place.

I don’t think I follow the point you are trying to make. Does it relate to the thread subject of the six problems achieving believability?

Thanks. It does not relate to the thread's topic, I was just curious to know.

 

[PeterA]

If I were to make a video of a speaker playing music with different EQ settings do you think you would be able to tell them apart?

I switched power cords to my turntables motor controller, and sent it to a friend. We both heard the differences over video. Same with slightly different VTA settings on the same tonearm. Same with changing one tube in the power amp.

 

[wil]

Yes, we agree.

I'm thinking that the having of psycho-acoustic images or visuals in our head is not something we choose to happen when it does. Those are the product of the person and the stereo which as you suggest can be augmented with certain gear, setup and room.

Personally I enjoy a recording of live acoustic music, say a symphony or a concerto where there is a sense of the venue or surrounding space -- what I call "a sense of an orchestra in a hall." In the case of a concerto I prefer a recording that offers some sense of the relative position of the soloist to the orchestra along with having a 'proper' balance of sound between them, where the soloist stands out a bit during their highlights and is not folded into the orchestra or too spotlit. I think these factors ultimately come from the recording although the person/system may hinder or reveal them.

Outlined images, or imagining one performer in relative position to another performer or bas-relief images are of less importance and are unessential to believability.

The 'singer in my room' is quixotic to me, not realistic. My room is not her venue acoustically or otherwise.

When I listen, I don't see an imagined visual event in my mind, but I do like to hear the relative spatial areas of the musicians. Sometimes I'll imagine maybe a finger on a string or key, but it's always vague visually and has everything to do with the sense of the human presence behind the sound/music.

My best listening experiences are always when my state of mind allows for an immersion into each moment passing to the next moment. It's about a lot of things but essentially it's about the elements of music and not the associations or abstractions of the music -- just the thing itself.
Everything else, like imagining the facial expression on the oboists face is just a distraction from the sound.

I can only pull this off, with varying degree of success, when I'm alert and with an uncluttered mind. If I'm tired, or in a post prandial large mammal state, I have to struggle to stay awake which is a total waste of time!

 

[ssfas]

What's your system?

Wilson Sabrina in a dedicated room 18' x 14' x 9' with a very pleasing acoustic (mix of building materials and furnishings), low noise floor (treated brick walls, acoustic glass, dedicated wiring) and some clever lighting. Streaming and vinyl, both front ends extremely quiet. Gryphon integrated amp. It has a 2015 vintage ESS9018 DAC that I find preferable and frankly more believable than a more modern DAC that I recently sold.

 

[ssfas]

If one is most serious about analog reproduction, nothing less than the TechDas Air Force Zero would be the starting point.

NOTE TO SELF: Take analogue more seriously.

 

[SoundMann]

To be fair to Soundmann, he has Acoustat Spectras and Ear 834p. So he has extremely high value components. No idea about his amps, but if he has restored them poperly to drive the spectras, it will be a very smart set up, like No Regrets', capable of beating regular ultra high end at low cost (which, btw, is looing easier and easier these days to achieve).

Yes, my BGW is properly restored.

 

[ssfas]

In other words you have put together a system that you can afford and pleases you sound wise. Good for you !

I've heard enough reference systems to know that no such thing exists.

I find looking at hifi distracts me from the believable listening experience. Tubes and little lights and meters winking at me say "you're listening to hifi". Hence I've usually had my hifi in an enclosed unit. Now not possible for ventilation reasons, so it is all stealthy black and on a single rack in a corner of the room. Having good lighting control is also important.

 

[ssfas]

Yes, my BGW is properly restored.

On my tour of cheap phono stages, I used an EAR Phonobox for a year or so. It's a really very good and fun thing and a true wonder for its price. I replaced it with RCM and more recently Mofi.

 

[ssfas]

I don’t know how each of the recordings was recorded, but there is information about how some of them were recorded written on the jackets. I can’t assume all of them are different because some are from the same recording engineers and labels and similar performances. They were likely recorded similarly, but others are recorded differently.

No, not all of them remind me of what I hear in the concert hall because not all of them were recorded in a concert hall. And what I hear is just a representation of the event now in my listening room. It’s not the same as listening to live music. Different time different place.

For classical chamber and solo recordings I always check the recording venue and often it's the first thing I look at. Many performers have favoured venues and rarely record elsewhere. This is not just their preference, it contributes to their sound and their listeners expect to hear that sound and room acoustic. It's a vitally important element to the recording. It doesn't need ultra-hifi.

Obvious favourites are Henry Wood Hall and Snape Maltings. There are many fine recordings done at St Jude's by Jared Sachs, particularly by Rachel Podger, but I've never enjoyed the live acoustic when I've been there for concerts. Sachs must have a way of taming it and retaining some reality. Generally I hate studio piano recordings as lifeless, like Lang Lang Bach Goldbergs. Tash Baldwin at UMG is trying to give classical a kick in the butt, mostly successfully, that high profile project was a dud in my book. Getting believable classical recordings is a long established skill that should be left untouched.

 

[thedudeabides]

Whether or not this is really true, we are speaking of the very best available here.

I learned a long time ago that in hi end audio, there is no such thing as a "universal" best. There are only subjective opinions. To state otherwise is IMHO naive.

 

[SoundMann]

I learned a long time ago that in hi end audio, there is no such thing as a "universal" best. There are only subject opinions. To state otherwise is IMHO naive.

Again, my criteria for establishing the true reference standard is not being taken into account here.

 

[Al M.]

Again, my criteria for establishing the true reference standard is not being taken into account here.

The clue is in your term "my criteria", which implies the subjectivity that was pointed out.

You can of course claim that "my criteria" are "objective criteria", but for a good part that would be an illusion -- the alignment with these criteria according to your ears would still be one guided by subjective perception.

 

[SoundMann]

The clue is in your term "my criteria", which implies the subjectivity that was pointed out.

You can of course claim that "my criteria" are "objective criteria", but for a good part that would be an illusion -- the alignment with these criteria according to your ears would still be one guided by subjective perception.

So comparing an on location direct to disc pressing against the actual live event in real time results in a mere subjective illusion?

I have been involved as a reference listener in such tests, and have been listening to live unamplified instruments all of my life. I leave subjectivity to those who do not have the sound of live music burned into their brains.

For me, if it doesn't sound real and convincing, it doesn't sound good.

 

[Al M.]

So comparing an on location direct to disc pressing against the actual live event in real time results in a mere subjective illusion?

I have been involved as a reference listener in such tests, and have been listening to live unamplified instruments all of my life. I leave subjectivity to those who do not have the sound of live music burned into their brains.

For me, if it doesn't sound real and convincing, it doesn't sound good.

Well, as expected you deny the point about subjectivity. No surprise here.

I have a lot of experience with unamplified live music as well, but I am under no illusion that my, or anyone else's, assessment of audio gear aligning with that sound is still subjective.

There are many listeners who have lots of experience with live acoustic music, and who still arrive at different gear and sounds. Every listener perceives differently and has different listening priorities.

If it sounds "real and convincing" to *you*, that's a subjective assessment right there.

 

[Holmz]

The clue is in your term "my criteria", which implies the subjectivity that was pointed out.

You can of course claim that "my criteria" are "objective criteria", but for a good part that would be an illusion -- the alignment with these criteria according to your ears would still be one guided by subjective perception.

Most systems with a metric showing poor frequency response, extra resonances, driver compression etc. Are usually systems that are not as liked subjectively.
I suspect the ones you like the sound of, are also not objectively flawed.

 

[SoupRKnowva]

I think another attribute that should be addressed is that everyone has a different idea of what believable even is.

A few weeks back I spent some time with Ron of the New Record Day YouTube channel as his sound shed, and I took my Chord Dave and Soulnote A-3 with me. We were listening to lots of different gear, but as we swapped in the Dave and A-3, I felt there was a noticeable increase in the believability of the sound. I also felt this at home. Vocals with the A-3 to me are uncanny, and the closest I have ever heard to a transition from sounding reproduced to sounding real. There is something dumb I've said repeatedly at home but also with Ron, "her air is our air". This was in reference to a specific track where her vocals sound more real than I've ever heard once the A-3 is added to the system, and this phenomenon also accuring at Ron's place, in his setup with his speakers, was further evidence. Ron agreed with my nonsense about her air being our air, it's like with the A-3 she sounds so real you can hear the air around her mic while singing and her air is literally in your room.

He was so excited with the sound that the following day, he invited another one of his friends over to hear the sound we were getting with the Dave and A-3. That friend thought it sounded good but digital, and then we slowly rolled back the changes, going back to a Dodd audio DAC and the Spatial Audio tube amp, he felt that the sound was much more realistic, even though I found it colored, sounding much like a reproduction than the reality offered by Dave and A-3.

This was eye opening for me. To have to completely opposite reactions to the same gear in the same room at the same time. I don't want to say one of us was right or wrong, just that the reference for everyone can be different and its useful to keep that in mind.


Another thing I often talk about with audio friends is using real life performances, instruments, etc as a reference. As while I get the intent, I actually dont find this particularly instructive, at least not for me personally. Thats not to say I don't use reality as a reference, but not in such a direct manner. The vast majority of what I listen to is recorded in a studio, close mic'd and mixed and mastered at a console, by a human, on whatever gear, in whatever room, they are using. So when I get into discussions with audiophiles about things, such as imagine precision, they might say something like, "images aren't super precise and hard in real life, so why should they be in my stereo?", I usually counter with, well, I don't listen in real life, from an inch away with a microphone that is then EQ'd and mixed in to create a stereo image. So I find is useful to consider the whole chain when thinking about things like this.

Even in cases when you are listening to live recordings, are they recorded in a manner that can directly translate to a stereo at home? or are they also multi-mic'd and mixed in a studio later to get the end result.

 

[sbo6]

You glossed over the "in a true reference system" part. With the exception of your Air Tight cartridge, yours doesn't qualify.

You're a funny one. I get you, you're one of those, "I heard this million $ system and my $5K system blows it away" and "nothing beats vinyl" kind of guys.

Here's what I'll say - the component you chose in my system as potentially reference is the least reference caliber in my analog chain.

Also, I heard your ML knockoffs many moons ago, Stereophile nailed it in their review. Here's a tip if I may - Magnepan.

Based on all above, I think your audiophile compass just might be a bit askew, my friend.

Keeping reaching for that reference, bud. Have a good one, and happy listening!

 

[morricab]

You're a funny one. I get you, you're one of those, "I heard this million $ system and my $5K system blows it away" and "nothing beats vinyl" kind of guys.

Here's what I'll say - the component you chose in my system as potentially reference is the least reference caliber in my analog chain.

Also, I heard your ML knockoffs many moons ago, Stereophile nailed it in their review. Here's a tip if I may - Magnepan.

Based on all above, I think your audiophile compass just might be a bit askew, my friend.

Keeping reaching for that reference, bud. Have a good one, and happy listening !

Acoustats are ML knockoffs? Now who is being the funny guy here…

 

[thedudeabides]

Keeping reaching for that reference, bud. Have a good one, and happy listening!

He apparently is firmly grounded in his subjective opinions. Having passion about what you believe is a good thing. So is humility.